Court Upholds Planning Consent for Heliport Close to Fuel Storage Depots

Few human activities are entirely risk free but, when deciding whether to authorise potentially hazardous developments, planning professionals have to keep the worst-case scenario well in mind. In a case on point, the High Court opened the way for construction of a commercial heliport despite…

Jul 07, 2021

Helicopter flying over portland 1024x683

Few human activities are entirely risk free but, when deciding whether to authorise potentially hazardous developments, planning professionals have to keep the worst-case scenario well in mind. In a case on point, the High Court opened the way for construction of a commercial heliport despite fears that its proximity to huge fuel storage depots would present a risk of catastrophe.

The heliport was proposed for a site in the docklands area of a major city. Within a few hundred metres of the site, two companies operate depots with a joint capacity of over 100 million litres of highly inflammable distilled fuel. Both depots are sites regulated under the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 2015. They also take on petroleum products from ships that dock at a nearby wharf, which typically contain 12-13,000 tonnes of fuel.

In challenging the local authority’s decision to grant planning consent for the heliport, the companies argued that inadequate consideration had been given to the risk of a helicopter crash triggering a disaster of catastrophic proportions. The council, they asserted, had acted irrationally in abdicating responsibility for analysing the public dangers created by the proposed development.

Rejecting the companies’ arguments, however, the Court found that members of the council’s planning committee and the planning officer who advised in favour of the heliport had recognised that the risks posed to the COMAH sites were a principal issue in their consideration of the planning application.

In giving extensive consideration to that issue, the committee considered that the site’s current ad hoc and ancillary use as a private helipad and hangar was less safe than a commercial heliport, which would be under the regulatory control of the Civil Aviation Authority. Use of the facility would be restricted to high-performance helicopters, flown by professional pilots. Flight paths, which would be mainly over water, would be strictly controlled.

The Court acknowledged that the planning officer erred in stating to the committee that the risk of a catastrophic helicopter failure was one in 9 billion, rather than one in 1 billion. The risk was, however, correctly recorded in the officer’s written report. The report, and the debate before the committee, should not be subjected to hypercritical analysis and it was ultimately a matter of planning judgment whether the risks and mitigation measures were acceptable.

Severe Menopausal Symptoms Can Amount to a Disability, ET Rules

The word ‘disability’ may summon images of people suffering from grave physical incapacity but, in employment law terms, it has a much broader meaning than that. In an employment case on point, a woman who was suffering from the ill effects of the menopause met the statutory definition of disability. The woman, who was in her 50s, suffered physical symptoms including hot flushes, night sweats, headaches, joint pain and tingling extremities. Mentally, she endured anxiety, panic attacks,…

Uber Drivers Are Workers – Supreme Court Finally Settles the Argument

Tightly defined controls that online private hire vehicle operator Uber exerts over drivers who use its app proved decisive in the Supreme Court’s ruling that they are ‘workers’, as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996, and are thus entitled to receive the National Minimum Wage, paid leave and other benefits. Uber has, without success, fought its way through the tribunal and court systems in an attempt to establish that its drivers are self-employed contractors, in business on their own…

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…